TN 295 



No. 9139 



■ 



■ 



■ i 1 1 
I I 

■ 

■'-7 ■ 

I 

■ 
I 

^1 









• ** 



k* 



y » 0v ^ -•! 



% ••"•• A o 






3 vk 






o 



.ko W 1 .-iS&'v V,** ->»h ^ .*♦ /dfe*. ^ ^ .*fc 







IT 












.0 






6 V ^ 



o - 












* aV *^ 






» "*, V 



/'. . . :s;--~ v /. ... x^ : > >U XW # 









& Sa 






1 •v°* > 













•-% 















•^ A^ * l * 




p*/^i->o .^\-^:>^ ,o*.^..% 




W : 







<?> '•.»• .« 













6.V * 



• ^^ 






A V> ^ 


















(Or O, », 






<v -7", v i 

• " ^ y v »'rff<f»isL*- "*«<> a.'- 1 »i*^* «* V 










*. * 



















^°^ V 









>* « 






<r *\ 



"ov* 






f, >^-. °v^*/ v^v v^v \'W>y v^v * 

^/fc\ c^C^r>o >*.i«^-X /,C^^°o a^.-^:-^ c 






:- -ov v • 



J ^, 



<^ ** 






"3^ " 



.a5°** 



A^ •' 






*° *° .... X *■" * A» s .. V* oT ° *° S •-"* ^ %"^'* aO' V ^^^ ^ -, 

.^ .^vi- ^ ^ .*sfi£f. v a-^° /.;V^ **. .^ v ^^k-. ^ .a>° .:i>-:.. v .^ v .^& 



-\** r °v-^-V V*- T V <v^V v*-'V V^V * 
















0" ♦ 










."- -ov^ 






.<* ■• 



* %,~''T'* aP' 







**0« 

















*^* v • 






'••-*- £*£Hk°« /-^^\ <?.£Jfc°* <* y -^*+ /^^ 











I*- "%^ 




^5°^ *.^^^» »p^ *.«?3&iy. # ^o 






^"^. 



<^ • 















V-- 















*oV* 



^°^ 



• \„./' :iMo V * ^ v /SfK-. ^ c^" »>V^/^. A *' * 



o»o- .0 



u ^ 



v^ v 



^^' 



\ •«»?• y\ \HK- /\ - ^5K-" *^ 
./ .*:^toi-. V<° :fce& %/ .*^hk ^ , 



v* v 






•oV' 



" , ^° 







^0^ 



i0 V> 

























:\/ 









K> " <* ^ '•«•' aV ^ •- 1 *V 









%^ v .ai 



^d* 



" «♦' 



L^ 











4cu 







<. *^r 






v v ( .^^*, "^ aO^ t *y£*, *> 













4 .l^^..', •*_ f, u »^,/k>^-. o .i4 













V** ••« 



O 4 

O. * . » * .0 



° a*" 



p^\ / *s^\ *tjg@&.\ ^s<mfc\ c sjm&S / '^l % \ s 



s 






& ^ 






V. -^■■S'* .^^ 




%*^ •«• V** • 



* .A V "^. 



t~ .n 




^/ 



*te. a5< *Y5, , 



IC 9139 



Bureau of Mines Information Circular/1987 



An Analysis of Off-Highway Haulage Truck 
Maintenance and Repair Accidents, 1978-84 



By Dennis A. Long 




UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 



Information Circular 9139 



An Analysis of Off-Highway Haulage Truck 
Maintenance and Repair Accidents, 1978-84 



By Dennis A. Long 




UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
Donald Paul Hodel, Secretary 

BUREAU OF MINES 
Robert C. Horton, Director 







Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data: 



Long, Dennis A. 

An analysis of off-highway haulage truck maintenance and 
repair accidents, 1978-84. 

(Information circular; 9139) 

Bibliography: p. 14-15. 

Supt. of Docs, no.: I 28.27: 9139. 

1. All-terrain vehicles— Maintenance and repair— Safety measures. 2. Mine 
haulage— Safety measures. I. Title. II. Series: Information circular (United States. 
Bureau of Mines); 9139. 



TN295.U4 [TL235.6] 622 s [363.1 '19622 '69] 86-600379 



CONTENTS 

Page 

Abstract 1 

Introduction 2 

Safety hazard assessment for off -highway haulage trucks 3 

Serious accidents and fatalities 4 

Truck maintenance personnel 5 

Truck maintenance shops and areas 8 

Truck design for serviceability 9 

Truck maintenance j ob procedures 11 

Summary and conclusions 13 

References 14 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

1. Truck accidents in U.S. surface mines 3 

Truck maintenance accidents by — 

2. Age 5 

3. Job experience 6 

4. Job title 6 

5. Body part injured 7 

6. Commodity 9 

TABLES 
Truck maintenance accidents by — 

1. Days away from work 7 

2. System worked on 10 

3. Capacity, compared with truck population 11 

4. Activity of the injured 11 

5. Source of injury 12 

6. Tools and equipment 12 

7. Unsafe conditions 13 



UNIT OF MEASURE ABBREVIATIONS USED IN 


THIS REPORT 


ft foot St 


short ton 


h hour yd 


yard 


pet percent yr 


year 



AN ANALYSIS OF OFF-HIGHWAY HAULAGE TRUCK 
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR ACCIDENTS, 1978-84 



By Dennis A. Long 1 



ABSTRACT 

The size of off-highway trucks has increased substantially over the 
last decade, bringing about a radical change in truck maintenance prac- 
tices and procedures. As a result, surface mine maintenance mechanics 
today are faced with the increased hazards of working with larger and 
heavier tools and components and doing repairs at greater heights , 
thereby exposing them to a high potential for serious injury or death. 
Not surprisingly, the number of accidents involving truck maintenance 
mechanics is significantly increasing. 

The Bureau of Mines has assessed the haulage truck maintenance safety 
problem, analyzing maintenance-accident data over the 7-yr period, 1978- 
84, in terms of personnel, job activities, truck components and systems, 
tools involved, and truck design. This assessment, based on the review 
and interpretation of 1,225 haulage truck maintenance accident reports, 
identified major factors contributing to these accidents. Overall, 
young, inexperienced workers are involved in most accidents. A typical 
maintenance accident involves a male mechanic under 33 yr old, with less 
than 5 yr job experience. 

1 Mining engineer, Twin Cities Research Center, Bureau of Mines, Minneapolis, MN, 



INTRODUCTION 



Over the past decade, surface mine 
maintenance and repair operations have 
changed radically. The number of mainte- 
nance personnel has grown along with the 
hazards of working with larger and heavi- 
er components at greater heights and with 
larger and heavier tools. Furthermore, 
transfer of skills from over-the-road 
vehicle mechanics is not as feasible as 
it once was, because of the ever- 
increasing size of mining equipment and 
the complexity of its design. In short, 
surface mine equipment maintenance and 
repair has become increasingly sophisti- 
cated as well as labor intensive, neces- 
sitating further research and evaluation 
in terms of both safety and efficiency 

a, i-8). 2 

Maintenance and repair operations in 
U.S. surface mines, during the 1978-84 
period, accounted for 34. 1 pet of all 
surface mining lost-time accidents and 
16.5 pet of all fatalities (_li>. A study 
in 1974 analyzed maintenance accidents in 
metal-nonmetal mines, showing that 22.7 
pet of the surface mining accidents were 
charged to maintenance (13). Thus, de- 
spite the differences in population be- 
tween the two studies, there is evidence 
toward a rising trend in the proportion 
of maintenance accidents to all surface 
mine accidents. 

During the 1978-84 period, surface min- 
ing accounted for about one-third of all 
mining accidents and one-third of all 
mining fatalities. In U.S. surface mines 
during the 7-yr period, there were 18,331 
maintenance-related injuries and 67 fa- 
talities. This resulted in 243,827 lost 
days and 15,414 restricted days (12). 

Despite the increasing safety hazard 
and the significant potential for im- 
provements in efficiency and produc- 
tivity, little effort has been made to 
evaluate maintenance safety or to initi- 
ate improvements (8, J^). This is due, 
in part, to the fact that mine manage- 
ment traditionally concentrates first 
on production-related problems over 

■^Underlined numbers in parentheses re- 
fer to items in the list of references at 
the end of this report. 



maintenance, but also because of the 
overall difficulty in managing the wide 
spectrum of maintenance activities and 
concerns (6_). Thus, lacking the means to 
assess current performance and accurately 
identify improvements, mines and plants 
unknowingly have missed the potential for 
improving performance, safety, produc- 
tivity, and subsequently, profitability 
through better maintenance of equipment 
(4, 6, JL4). 

From the analysis of Mine Safety and 
Health Administration (MSHA) computer 
listings of all U.S. surface mines (12) 
during the 1978-84 period, and the find- 
ings of previous research (1_, 3), surface 
mine maintenance and repair operations 
are expected to continue to change dras- 
tically through the year 2000, because 
of the — 

Increasing mechanization of individual 
mining operations and off -road equipment; 

Increasing size and complexity of 
equipment design as well as shop ancil- 
lary equipment; and 

Changes in the demographics of the sur- 
face mining industry. Because of to the 
extensive layoffs of younger employees 
during the recent mining recession, there 
will likely be a future shortage of ex- 
perienced mechanics as the more experi- 
enced, older mechanics retire. 

Maintenance and repair is a key area on 
which to focus attention in order to re- 
duce injuries in U.S. surface mines. 
There is a lack of information on main- 
tenance safety, and this area may well be 
a new frontier for safety professionals. 
Past industrial hazards work has focused 
attention mainly on such areas as slips 
and falls of persons or on vehicle col- 
lisions. However, there is relatively 
little information on specific mine main- 
tenance hazards. This may be due to the 
fact that it is a difficult area to as- 
sess because of the great variety of job 
procedures, tools, equipment, and shop 
conditions. 



During the past 10 to 15 yr, the Bureau 
has been responsible for many technologi- 
cal advances that have provided increased 
safety for mining operations, but addi- 
tional areas of research have been iden- 
tified. Interest in mine worker safety 
has prompted the Bureau to investi- 
gate surface mine maintenance safety (j^, 
10-11). Because of its essential role 
in surface mining operations, as well as 
initial research that indicated a declin- 
ing safety record, haulage truck mainte- 
nance and repair activities were targeted 
for initial investigation. This report 
summarizes the data collected, providing 



baseline information on the industrial 
hazards associated with haulage truck 
maintenance and repair activities in U.S. 
surface mines. Additional maintenance 
and repair information has been obtained 
from two Bureau research studies (J_, 3) , 
which included a broad-based survey of 
mine practices across the United States. 
A review of the data suggests that there 
are both human factors and ergonomic and 
engineering design problems in the truck 
maintenance operations. The evidence 
also shows that these problems contribute 
to accidents, injuries, and fatalities. 



SAFETY HAZARD ASSESSMENT FOR OFF-HIGHWAY HAULAGE TRUCKS 



This report summarizes information 
taken from Mine Safety and Health Admini- 
stration (MSHA) accident records to fur- 
ther delineate the growing maintenance 
safety problem (12). Recommendations are 
based on information taken directly from 
the accident reports, combined with dis- 
cussions with industry contacts. Surface 
mine haulage trucks were selected for 
this study since they are the predominant 
vehicle in surface mine equipment fleets, 
and it was anticipated that haulage truck 
accident trends would closely parallel 
other surface equipment. 

In U.S. surface mines, over the 1978-84 
7-yr period, there were 7,160 truck- 
related accidents, such as slips and 
falls, collisions, maintenance, and other 
accidents. This accident category in- 
cludes all trucks, including off -highway 
and on-highway haulage vehicles, as well 
as service trucks and other nonhaulage 
vehicles that are also used as a part of 
the maintenance function. 

All of the 7,160 surface mine truck ac- 
cident reports ( 12 ) were inspected, and 
the 1,225 off -highway haulage truck 
maintenance accidents during the 7-yr 
period were reviewed and coded, using ac- 
cident factors pertinent to maintenance. 
The study included accidents involving 
all personnel, regardless of job title, 
performing maintenance and repair on off- 
highway haulage trucks of 50-st or 
greater capacity. This includes service 
vehicles utilized in the maintenance of 
these vehicles and ancillary maintenance 



activities that are directly related to 
haulage truck maintenance , such as re- 
build shops or parts warehouses. The 
activities include all preventive main- 
tenance, inspections, repairs, lubrica- 
tion, cleaning, towing, and maintenance 
supervision. 

As an overview of the 7,160 surface 
mine truck accidents (fig. 1) that were 
reviewed, 31.9 pet (2,284) were at- 
tributed to maintenance and repair 
activities. The maintenance and repair 
of the larger, 50-st or greater capacity 
haulage vehicles accounted for 17.1 pet 




(7,160 total surface mine truck accidents) 
FIGURE 1.— Truck accidents In U.S. surface mines. 



(1,225) of the total mine truck acci- 
dents. Maintenance and repair of trucks 
less than 50-st capacity accounted for 
14.8 pet (1,059). Single truck accidents 
or collisions contributed 21.2 pet of all 
accidents (12). Of the remaining 46.9 



pet of the truck accidents, other Bureau 
research has confirmed that roughly 35 
pet are due to slips and falls ( _9) . 
Thus, the remaining estimated 12 pet of 
the accidents would include all other 
categories (12). 



SERIOUS ACCIDENTS AND FATALITIES 



A review of the accident data base and 
MSHA Fatalgrams revealed that eight re- 
ported fatalities involving 50-st or 
greater capacity off-highway haulage 
truck maintenance and repair were re- 
corded during the 7-yr period 1978-84 
(12). A brief analysis of each fatality 
is presented to give a perspective of the 
wide spectrum of conditions that can be 
present where people are killed: 

1. A tire vendor in Indiana was un- 
loading large truck tires at the mine 
shop using hooking chains on a hydraulic 
hoist. The chain slipped, causing the 
tire to fall 6 ft onto the man, crushing 
him. The vendor was 55 yr old and had 
2 yr of job experience and 30 yr of total 
mining experience. This fatality shows 
the need to monitor outside contractors 
who work on the mine property. 

2. A mine laborer in Arizona, who was 
operating the maintenance service truck, 
was sent to the machine shop to pick up a 
truck part. A boom truck backed over him 
as he faced the back of his service 
truck. The laborer was 40, with 14 yr of 
job experience and 19 yr mining experi- 
ence. This fatality shows the wide spec- 
trum of activities that encompass main- 
tenance and repair. 

3. A truck driver in Texas was servic- 
ing a haulage truck in the field when an 
unattended, empty haulage truck rolled 
100 yd downgrade, struck the truck being 
serviced and drove the left drive tire 
over him. The truck driver was 19, with 
no experience. This fatality shows one 
of the inherent dangers involved with 
conducting field maintenance, rather than 
towing the disabled vehicle to the shop. 

4. A mechanic in Nebraska was working 
under a raised and blocked truck bed. 
After 3 h of stability the blocks kicked 
out, crushing the employee. The mechanic 



was 28, with 2 yr of both job and mine 
experience. 

5. A truck driver in Tennessee was 
servicing a truck hoist mechanism when 
the truck bed fell, pinning his head and 
neck between the bed and the frame. The 
truck driver was 56, with 7 yr of both 
job and mine experience. 

6. A mechanic in Kentucky was charging 
an air tank. During the procedure the 
truck operator was told by a third em- 
ployee to move the truck, and he thus ran 
over the mechanic. The mechanic was 59, 
with 13 yr of job experience and 30 yr of 
mining experience. This fatality shows 
the dangers associated with working 
around large equipment and the need for 
good communication. 

7. A mine laborer in West Virginia was 
assisting on a maintenance task that in- 
volved a winch line. When the winch 
stand broke, the cable hit the mine 
laborer, propelling him into a brick 
wall. The laborer was 28, with 2 yr of 
both job and mine experience. 

8. A mechanic in Nebraska was working 
under a partially raised truck bed which 
was blocked up by shop stands. The 
stands kicked out crushing the employee. 
The mechanic was 59, with 13 yr of job 
experience and 30 yr of mine experience. 

Over the same 7-yr period, there were 
19 serious accidents reported, each re- 
sulting in disabling injuries (12). The 
average disability resulted in 29.2 lost 
days. The most frequent type of serious 
accident was amputation of body parts, 
most often fingers or hands; these ac- 
cidents were usually caused by close 
quarters or confined access points. 
There were nine such disabling injuries 
reported. Ruptures due to overexertion 
accounted for six accidents. One Injury 
involved a man getting pinned between a 



haulage truck and a service truck. 
Another injury involved a serious fall 
from a truck frame while steamcleaning. 

TRUCK MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL 



Finally, there were two disabling in- 
juries involving a fall of a truck box. 



Young, inexperienced workers are in- 
volved in the majority of haulage truck 
maintenance accidents. Workers under 25 
yr old were involved in 19.6 pet of all 
accidents, while those under 35 yr were 
involved in 55.8 pet of all accidents. 
Figure 2 summarizes truck maintenance ac- 
cidents by age of the injured employee. 
Figure 3 summarizes truck maintenance ac- 
cidents by job experience. Workers with 
less than 1 yr experience in the particu- 
lar job held at the time of the accident 
accounted for 19.9 pet of all accidents; 
68.1 pet had less than 5 yr of job ex- 
perience. Men are involved in 98.4 pet 
of all accidents, while women 1.6 pet. 
It should be noted that surface mine 
maintenance workcrews usually have a 
greater share of older, more experienced 



employees than other work crews. Since 
young, inexperienced personnel comprise a 
very small percentage of the maintenance 
personnel, the data would suggest an even 
higher incident rate for these employees 
(12). 

Job titles of mining personnel involved 
in truck maintenance accidents are pre- 
sented in figure 4. Maintenance person- 
nel, including mechanics, helpers, and 
trainees, accounted for 67.8 pet of the 
accidents, while mine equipment operators 
and laborers accounted for almost a 
quarter of them (12). 

To examine the nature of the injuries, 
table 1 presents haulage truck mainte- 
nnce accidents by days away from work 
(12). Of the maintenance accidents 
examined, 36.3 pet involved no lost time 



10 
h- 
Z 
LU 
D 
i— t 

(J 
(J 
< 

Ll 
D 

tz 

LU 
CD 



2S0 



235 - 



200 - 



175 - 



125 - 




100 



18-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 38-40 41-45 45-50 51-55 

AGE OF VICTIM, yr 
FIGURE 2.— Truck maintenance accidents, by age. 



>B1 



(/) 

h- 
z 

UJ 
D 
i— i 

U 

u 
< 

Ll 
O 

q: 
u 

z 

Z) 

z 



550- 



2i4 



CI, 224 total occldante whore Job oxparlonca wc 
opacl fled) 



® 



j^a. 



14 



1-5 B-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 

JOB EXPERIENCE, yr 

FIGURE 3.— Truck maintenance accidents, by job experience. 



and 39.0 pet involved between 1 and 15 
lost days. For comparison purposes, 39.3 
pet of all U.S. surface mining accidents 
have no lost time. Of the accidents with 
lost time, there was an average of 24.0 
lost days and 1.5 restricted days. In 
1977 each maintenance accident involved 
an average of 22.0 lost days, increasing 
incrementally each year through 1984; in 
1984 each accident involved an average of 
28.5 lost days, indicating an increasing 
trend toward more lost days per accident. 
This rising trend seems to be true in all 
segments of the mining industry. Field- 
gathered information from the mining in- 
dustry indicates that maintenance also 
accounts for a high percentage of the 
nonreportable type accidents. These less 
severe, "knuckle busting" accidents are 
more common in maintenance, and they in- 
crease costs and decrease productivity, 
but often do not show up directly in the 
reported accident statistics (1). 



Mechanic's helpers 
or trainees 2.9 pet 

Electricians 2.4 pet 
Supervision 2.2 pet 



-Welders 4.5 pet 




FIGURE 4.— Truck maintenance accidents, by Job title. 



The body part injured in truck main- 
tenance accidents is presented in figure 
5, with the data grouped into major cat- 
egories (_1_2). Head and neck injuries ac- 
count for 14.3 pet of the injuries. 
Major body injuries, involving the chest, 
back, hip, or trunk, totaled 18.0 pet. 
Back injuries from manual exertion in- 
volved 9.6 pet of the injuries. Multiple 
injuries totalled 9.9 pet; these in- 
juries are not recorded in the specific 
body part categories. It appears that 

TABLE 1. - Truck maintenance accidents, 
by days away from work 1 





Lost 


days 


Number 


pet 


o 


437 
303 
166 
121 
107 
69 


36.3 


1 to 6 

6 to 16 

16 to 31 


25.2 
13.8 
10.0 


31 to 61 


9.0 

5.7 


Total 


speed 
.fied. 
accic 


fied 


1,203 
22 


100.0 


Not speci 




NAp 


Total 




1,225 


NAp 



NAp Not applicable. 
Not counting restricted days where the 
employee is away from the normal job 
task. 



Back 9.6 pet 



Upper extremities 
28.4 pet 



Lower extremities 
19.8 pet 




Head and neck 14.3 pet 



Major body and 
trunk 18.0 pet 



Multiple injuries 
9.9 pet 



FIGURE 5.— Truck maintenance accidents, by body part in- 
jured. 



truck maintenance injuries most commonly 
involve the upper and lower extremities, 
accounting for 48.2 pet of all accidents. 

Injuries were most often due either to 
the employee's lack of training for the 
particular job at the time of the ac- 
cident or to the employee's conducting 
the job in a nonrecommended manner. When 
looking for the primary cause of the 
maintenance accidents, unsafe actions ac- 
count for 63.6 pet of all accidents; this 
category would include taking an unsafe 
position, using equipment unsafely, nul- 
lifying safety devices, and failing to 
use a platform or personal protection 
(12). The primary cause of about one- 
fourth of all accidents were due to the 
worker's taking an unsafe position; for 
example, reaching beyond one's lifting 
radius or attempting to climb a ladder 
with a heavy part in hand. 

While unsafe actions or human errors 
account for the majority of all truck 
maintenance accidents, equipment design 
deficiencies caused 28.0 pet of the ac- 
cidents (12). This category includes ac- 
cidents that clearly involved the design 
of the vehicle; for example, where the 
only way to remove a truck part is to 
manually lift through a confined opening. 
It seems likely that a portion of the ac- 
cidents due to unsafe actions may well 
have been mitigated through equipment re- 
design for serviceability. Thus, al- 
though the primary cause of the main- 
tenance accident is unsafe actions on the 
part of the employee,, there may be ways 
to prevent such human error accidents 
through equipment redesign. 

Another primary cause of accidents is 
the failure to secure, resulting in 6.9 
pet of the accidents, including improper 
support of heavy parts and components or 
an unexpected release of energy. Finally 
failure to warn or signal caused 1.5 pet 
of the accidents (12). 

Because of the significant number of 
accidents due to unsafe actions taken by 
mine personnel working on truck mainte- 
nance, it appears that improved skills 
training would be an effective way to 
reduce accidents. Further examination of 
the accident reports reveals that the 
people assigned to maintenance were — 



L a Performing tasks for which they 
were not formally or adequately trained. 
This includes both equipment operators 
doing maintenance-type work and mainten- 
ance mechanics moving a piece of equip- 
ment to and from the shop. Again, almost 
one-fourth of all haulage truck mainten- 
ance accidents involved mine equipment 
operators or laborers. 

2. Not following prescribed proce- 
dures or safety precautions. This might 
include disregarding lockout procedures, 
nullifying a safety device, or just not 
doing the job as instructed. 

3. Working with inadequate or impro- 
vised tools and equipment. Without the 
proper tools, it may be very difficult 
to complete a job without taking an 
unsafe action. 

Despite the importance of mechanic 
training, training alone will not allevi- 
ate the hazards to the maintenance em- 
ployee. Because of the great variety of 
makes and models of haulage trucks in any 
individual mine fleet, the maintenance 
and repair department must service a 
broad range of mechanical and electrical 
equipment, covering a vast number of 
tasks and procedures involving different 
tools, equipment, and mechanic expertise. 
This is further complicated by the vari- 
ety of mining equipment services, job 
procedures, tools, equipment, and shop 
conditions, and the many equipment modi- 
fications found at each mining operation 

a, 3). 

Increased training would help alleviate 
the safety hazard inherent in the job. 
Most maintenance training in the mines 
consists of safe work briefings followed 
by on-the-job experience under either a 
lead mechanic or a more senior employee. 
Instruction varies depending upon the 
teaching skills and job experience of 
the supervisor. Emphasis should be on 



recognizing specific hazards, knowing 
proper job procedures for the various 
truck models and systems, and correct use 
of tools and equipment (3_). 

The training materials most needed by 
mines are effective, easy-to-use trouble- 
shooting guides. Fewer than half of the 
equipment manufacturers provide such 
guides for their products (3_). Most 
of the available guides need to be im- 
proved substantially in terras of both 
readability and ease of use. Also needed 
are well-designed guidebooks for specific 
maintenance tasks , such as a manual on 
the haulage truck electrical system, 
cooling system, hydraulics, electronic 
components, etc. (3). Several manufac- 
turers have materials that can be pur- 
chased, but they cover only a limited 
number of maintenance tasks on a specific 
truck system. Future research is needed 
to characterize design guidelines for 
maintenance service manuals (3_). 

It is also important to correctly as- 
sign only qualified maintenance personnel 
to specific maintenance tasks. For ex- 
ample, over one-fourth of the truck main- 
tenance accidents involved mine equipment 
operators, who were, for the most part, 
untrained in maintenance-type work. 
Also, the more skilled mechanics are 
often assigned to routine tasks, such as 
transporting equipment to the shop, that 
could be handled by less experienced 
mechanics (.!)• 

Mechanics should also be trained and 
qualified to operate the equipment they 
maintain. Although their job involves 
moving equipment around the shop area, 
mechanics are often not adequately 
trained to operate the vehicles they ser- 
vice. Mechanics should be familiar with 
the control functions of the vehicles 
they repair in order to minimize the 
safety hazard (1_, 3_). 



TRUCK MAINTENANCE SHOPS AND AREAS 



The majority of accidents occur in the 
shop facility where the maintenance and 
repair activities usually take place. 
Specifically, 67.3 pet of all haulage 
truck maintenance accidents, for the 
years 1978-84, occurred in the shop, 



while the remainder (32.7 pet) occurred 
in the field (12). 

The importance of accident location in- 
creases when it is considered that most 
maintenance activities do take place 
within the shop facilities. The mining 



companies surveyed reported that approxi- 
mately 85 to 90 pet of the truck main- 
tenance and repair worktime is completed 
in the shop O^). If the accident distri- 
bution was normal one would expect a 
similar proportion of the accidents (85 
to 90 pet) to occur within the shop fa- 
cility. Although 32.7 pet of the ac- 
cidents in this study occurred in the 
field, only about 10 to 15 pet of the 
maintenance worktime involves field main- 
tenance. Accordingly, field maintenance 
work is two to three times as hazardous 
as work completed within or around the 
shop facility. 

One way to counter the hazards of field 
maintenance work is to develop and use 
towing vehicles capable of moving dis- 
abled haulage trucks back to the shop. 
Usually, towing a large haulage truck is 
very difficult, involving two or more 
support vehicles and additional person- 
nel. And because of the cost, it is not 
common in the United States to have 
specialized towing vehicles. Another 
solution might be to retrofit the truck 
so that it can be towed more easily (_1.)» 

Improved physical design of maintenance 
shops and equipment bays could help re- 
duce accidents. Important factors are 
shop organization, housekeeping, illumi- 
nation, and transporting of parts. Poor 
condition of tools and equipment contri- 
butes to a significant portion of the ac- 
cidents studied. An effectively designed 
workspace could enhance productivity, 
allow more efficient use of tools, and 
improve safety. At least 3 pet of the 
accidents involved poor housekeeping 
practices in some way (12). 

From the analysis of the maintenance 
accidents, combined with mine visits, it 
is apparent that poor workspace organiza- 
tion is common in many surface mining 
shop facilities; it is manifested as 
follows: 

Handtools and small power tools strewn 
about or stored wherever space permitted, 
forcing people to climb over or reach 
around them. 



Tools or parts not conveniently lo- 
cated, forcing people to look for them or 
do without. 

Shop floors covered with cables and 
hoses, presenting tripping hazards. 

Work performed on oil or grease splat- 
tered floors or on unimproved rocky 
ground in the field. 

In addition, because most haulage truck 
shops service larger trucks than they 
were originally designed for, workspace 
is at a premium. Quite commonly there is 
insufficient space between truck bays to 
use tire grabbers or forklifts to handle 
heavy parts. Further research is needed 
to analyze and improve the total mainte- 
nance system as it functions within the 
shop facility (1). 

Some environmental hazards are present 
in shop facilities (1_, 3). For example, 
it is common for welding to be done in- 
side the shop buildings, and shop exhaust 
systems are often ineffective in evacuat- 
ing the fumes. Another problem of much 
concern is with lighting; in most mine 
shops illumination levels are generally 
below accepted industry standards. Noise 
levels are often very high in shops, par- 
ticularly where electric arc welding is 
performed. 

Another important truck-shop problem is 
communication. As previously mentioned, 
the failure to warn or signal was the 
primary cause of 1.5 pet of the accidents 
and at least one fatility. Frequently, 
there are two or more people working on 
or around large mining equipment at any 
time. It is important that these people 
can communicate their intentions and 
actions to each other. Simple solutions 
could include lockout equipment or proper 
tagging of which truck is being repaired 
U). 

Figure 6 illustrates the breakdown of 
truck maintenance accidents by commodity. 
Surface coal mining accounts for 51.3 pet 
of all accidents, with surface metal min- 
ing second at 26.7 pet. 



TRUCK DESIGN FOR SERVICEABILITY 



Some maintenance problems are associ- 
ated with the poor design of the truck 



for routine or major maintenance. Im- 
provements in design would substantially 



10 




TABLE 2. - Truck maintenance accidents, 
by system worked on 



FIGURE 6.— Truck maintenance accidents, by commodity. 



reduce maintenance time and maintenance- 
related injuries (1_, 3). Table 2 pre- 
sents accident frequency data for various 
systems of off-highway haulage trucks 
(12). 

The accident data indicate that the 
most accidents occur while working on the 
engine, truck body, drive train, or tires 
and wheels, while the lowest number of 
accidents occur with the exhaust and 
wheel motors. Overall, the body, tires 
and wheels, engine, and drive-train ac- 
count for 63.8 pet of the accidents where 
a system was specified, indicating a pos- 
sible correlation between number of 
accidents and the size and scale of the 
component or part to be worked on (12). 
Further research is needed to correlate 
truck system worktime to the accident 
rates, giving hazard exposure rates. 

Recommendations for improved truck de- 
sign should be matched with redesign of 
components, procedures, tools, and man- 
uals. Based on the accident data (12), 
previous research (1_, 3), and industry 
contacts, the main design problems 
include — 

Poor access to vehicle parts or areas 
of the unit such that routine maintenance 
tasks are overly complex; 



Number 



173 


21.3 


153 


18.8 


100 


12.3 


93 


11.4 


67 


8.3 


51 


6.3 


47 


5.8 


40 


4.9 


35 


4.3 


20 


2.5 


12 


1.5 


9 


1.1 


12 


1.5 


812 


100.0 


413 


NAp 



1,225 



pet 



NAp 



System 

Engine 

Truck body 

Drive train 

Tires and wheels 

Cooling 

Brakes 

Electrical 

Hydraulic 

Suspension 

Steering 

Wheel motors 

Exhaus t 

Towing vehicle to shop... 

Total specified 

Not specified 

Total accidents 

NAp Not applicable. 



Inadequate access openings, clearances, 
and visibility to permit a person to 
reach in or climb in for tasks to be 
performed; 

The need to remove or dismantle ancil- 
lary components in order to gain access 
to the failed unit; 

Designing truck parts that require 
relatively unskilled mechanics to perform 
complex sequence of tasks in order to 
repair equipment; and 

Requiring mechanics to manipulate over- 
sized, heavy vehicle components in tight 
spaces with inadequate clearances, sup- 
ports, or tools. 

Because of the size and complexity of 
many haulage trucks, these design pro- 
blems can interact to make maintenance 
and repair more difficult, and often more 
hazardous. This can be further compli- 
cated by the lack of adequate tools 
available to correctly perform the re- 
quired maintenance task or the need to 
perform certain repairs in the field 
without the resources typically available 
in the shop area. 

One of the most hazardous maintenance 
tasks is the removal, repair, and re- 
placement of oversize truck tires (3). 
In reviewing accident reports, it became 
obvious that procedures for de-airing, 
airing, removing, and replacing tires are 



11 



inadequate. One out of five of all tire 
and rim accidents involved a tire ex- 
plosion, usually causing serious injury 
or death to mechanics in the vicinity of 
the explosion (12). 

In some cases, specific equipment modi- 
fications, both at the factory and at the 
mine, would help alleviate above-normal 
hazards. In most cases, the changes 
would involve original equipment options 
to be offered by the truck manufacturers. 
However, options that would enhance 
maintenance safety are often ignored, 
since the mine's safety department rarely 
can affect truck purchasing decisions 
(1). 

Table 3 lists truck maintenance ac- 
cidents by truck capacity (payload) , com- 
pared with estimated truck populations 
(12). From these data it is apparent 
that the 50- to 85-st-capacity trucks 
have twice the maintenance safety hazards 
than the 150-st-capacity trucks. This 
seems to correlate with the data that 
show access to be a major factor in 
truck maintenance safety, as the larger 
capacity trucks have greater space be- 
tween truck components. 



TABLE 3. - Truck maintenance accidents, 
by capacity, compared with truck 
population 



Capacity, st 


Accidents 


Popula- 




Number 


pet 


tion, pet 


50 to 85 


257 
92 
50 


64.4 
23.1 
12.5 


31.6 


90 to 145 


42.5 




25.9 


Total specified 


399 

826 


100.0 
NAp 


100.0 
NAp 


Total accidents 


1,225 


NAp 


NAp 



NAp Not applicable. 
Estimated based on truck manufacturer 
information, conversations with industry 
consultants, and surveys conducted by 
Engineering and Mining Journal (_5_) and 
Coal Age (2). 

A comparison of older haulage trucks 
with newer models indicates that progress 
has been made with regard to their human 
factors and ergonomic design, but most of 
the changes have related either to the 
equipment operator's safety and comfort 
or to the production aspects of the truck 
(1). 



TRUCK MAINTENANCE JOB PROCEDURES 



Further analysis of the data determined 
the cause of the maintenance accidents. 
Table 4 lists accidents by activity of 
the injured (12). These generic activity 
descriptions were created to simplify the 
data analysis. Movement around the shop 
area, and up and down the mobile equip- 
ment, accounted for over one-third of the 
injuries studied. This number reflects 
the need for adequate work platforms, ac- 
cess steps and ladders, and good house- 
keeping. Mechanic training should in- 
clude the broad range of activities that 
are included in the maintenance task, 
such as knowledge of the location and 
ease of access to the parts in the shop. 

Removing and replacing parts during 
maintenance activities accounted for 26.5 
pet of the accidents where the mainte- 
nance activity could be determined. Fre- 
quently, a truck part was either too 
heavy or out of reach, resulting in 
strains, sprains, or crushed or lacerated 
fingers when the part was accidentally 



dropped. Maintenance personnel should 
make better use of lifting equipment, or 
use additional people for handling such 
heavy parts and components as drive 
trains, tires and wheels, or suspensions. 
Job training to improve employee aware- 
ness of equipment size and the correct 
tools for handling various components are 
needed (1_, _3> 11)' 

TABLE 4. - Truck maintenance accidents, 
by activity of the injured 



Activity 



Removing-replacing parts.... 

Servicing equipment 

Getting on and off equipment 

Shop area activity 

Inspection 

Cleaning 

Total specified 

Not specified 

Total accidents 



Number 



310 
296 
245 
175 
107 
39 



1,172 
53 



1,225 



pet 



26.5 
25.3 
20.9 
14.9 
9.1 
3.3 



100.0 
NAp 



NAp 



NAp Not applicable. 



12 



The job activities that contribute most 
to injuries include (_3) — 

Limited aids for material handling 
(e.g., lifting devices, jacks, hoists); 

Lack of effective training programs and 
work procedures for manual material han- 
dling, typified by the prevailing atti- 
tude that back injuries due to lifting 
"will not happen to me"; 

Inadequate workstands or platforms for 
support during tasks requiring reaching 
or lifting; 

Inadequate use of personal protection 
equipment such as gloves, lifelines, or 
hearing protection; and 

Lack of supervision. 

Table 5 summarizes haulage truck main- 
tenance accidents by source injury. This 
information reveals that the work station 
was the most prevalent source, accounting 
for 35.5 pet of the accidents: this 
would be the area adjacent to and around 
the equipment being serviced, including 
makeshift supports, ladders, workstands, 
shop equipment, or the shop floor. 

TABLE 5. - Truck maintenance accidents, 
by source of injury 



Source of injury 


Number 


pet 




431 

246 

230 

114 

90 

80 

23 


35.5 


Truck body and/or large 

9 


20.3 


Truck parts or components 3 .. 


19.0 
9.4 




7.4 


Tires, wheels, hubs, or rims 


6.6 
1.8 




1,214 
11 


100.0 




NAp 




1,225 


NAp 



NAp Not applicable. 

Area immediately around vehicle being 
repaired. 

Components requiring mechanical hand- 
ling with cranes or special equipment. 

Includes most components that can be 
reasonably handled by 1 person. 



The truck body or large components ac- 
counted for about one-fifth of all acci- 
dents, by source of injury (12). Two 
fatalities occurred in 1980 as a result 
of failure to secure the truck box during 
maintenance, and numerous injuries and 
near misses have occurred. There should 
be a definite means of securing truck 
boxes using locking pins or other such 
devices, as well as training to ensure 
mechanics use these devices correctly. 

Over the 7-yr period, tools and equip- 
ment were Involved in about 10 pet of all 
accidents, and they were a contributing 
factor in the majority of accidents (12). 
Table 6 lists accidents by tools and 
equipment. Shop equipment was Involved 
in 48.2 pet of the truck maintenance ac- 
cidents where the tools and equipment in- 
volved in the accident were specified. 
Shop equipment includes the great variety 
of job aids that are used within the shop 
area, such as cranes, air compressors, 
hydraulic jacks, hoses, or tire changers. 
Some of the most hazardous types of shop 
equipment are hoisting apparatus, in- 
volved in 10.3 pet of all accidents, wa- 
ter hoses in 6.3 pet, steam cleaners in 
4.0 pet, and hydraulic jacks in 3.7 pet 
(12). 

Nonpowered handtools accounted for over 
one-third of all injuries. The accident 
data indicate that mechanics are eight 
times more likely to be injured using 
handtools than power tools, clearly show- 
ing the advantage of reducing manual ex- 
ertion. The design of handtools could be 
substantially improved. Maintenance of 
the mine off-highway trucks is complex 
and specialized, and usually must be ac- 
complished without conventional handtools 

TABLE 6. - Truck maintenance accidents, 
by tools and equipment 



Tools and equipment 

Shop equipment 

Nonpowered handtools 

Welding, cutting equipment 

Power handtools 

Total specified 

Not specified 

Total accidents 

NAp Not applicable. 



Number 



131 

101 

28 

12 



272 
953 



1,225 



pet 



48.2 

37.1 

10.3 

4.4 



100.0 
NAp 



NAp 



13 



and small power tools. Without knowledge 
about or availability of specially de- 
signed tools, shop personnel often resort 
to U, 3) — 

Unsafe practices and procedures; 

Locally designed and/or fabricated 
tools; and 

Misuse of available tools. 

Mechanics should be trained to use the 
right tool for the task, and supervisors 
should take more responsibility in insur- 
ing that the right tools are used. Also, 
the importance of tool maintenance and 
proper storage is again emphasized. 

Maintenance accidents are usually 
multifaceted in nature; although the 
primary cause of the accident could be 
human error, there could still be contri- 
buting factors, such as truck design pro- 
blems, tool equipment considerations, and 
other unsafe conditions. Table 7 lists 
accidents by unsafe conditions (12). The 
unsafe conditions present at the time of 
the accident are those factors that con- 
tributed to the probability or severity 
of an accident. By understanding the un- 
safe conditions present within the acci- 
dent scenario, the accident could pos- 
sibly be prevented or the degree of 
injury minimized. 

In roughly one-fourth of all accidents, 
inadequate truck design was the apparent 
unsafe condition. Poor access (partially 
a truck design problem) and poor work 
platforms together comprise 21.4 pet of 
all accidents, illustrating again the 
need for adequate access for maintenance. 
In 26.5 pet of all accidents analyzed 
there was no apparent unsafe condition. 



TABLE 7. - Truck maintenance accidents, 
by unsafe condition 



Number 



300 
132 
131 
127 

106 
96 

321 



1,213 
12 



1,225 



pet 



24.7 
10.9 
10.8 
10.5 

8.7 
7.9 

26.5 



100.0 

NAp 



NAp 



Unsafe condition 

Truck design deficiencies 

Poor access 

Wrong tools or equipment. 

Poor work platform 

Inadequate employee 

training 

Shop hazards 

No identifiable unsafe 

condition 

Total specified 

Not specified 

Total accidents 

NAp Not applicable. 



These accidents are due to either human 
error, such as misjudgment on the part of 
the employee, or due to chance error, 
where the mechanic is performing a main- 
tenance task with proper tools in the 
recommended way, and an accident occurs 
because of the tool breaking. On the 
other hand, inadequate employee training 
(8.7 pet) involves human error accidents 
where training may have in some way miti- 
gated or prevented the Injury. 

In the discussion of the primary cause 
of truck maintenance accidents, 63.6 pet 
of all accidents were attributed to un- 
safe actions, or human error, on the part 
of the employee. Combining this informa- 
tion with that of table 7, where 26.5 pet 
of all accidents had no unsafe condition 
evident, it can be concluded that a sign- 
ificant proportion of human-error acci- 
dents could possibly be prevented or mit- 
igated through equipment redesign for 
serviceability, training, or other main- 
tenance improvements (12). 



SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 



Overall, young, inexperienced workers 
are involved in most haulage truck 
maintenance accidents. A typical mainte- 
nance accident involves a male mechanic 
under 33 yr old, with under 5 yr job 
experience. Based on the review and 
interpretation of 1,225 haulage truck 



maintenance accident reports, the major 
factors in haulage truck maintenance ac- 
cidents appear to be — 

Lack of safety awareness or inability 
to measure and judge the job requirement 
by either the employee or the supervisor; 



14 



Poor access to working spaces on equip- 
ment, which forces the employee to take 
an unsafe position; 

Lack of craft training for specialized 
maintenance tasks; 

Poor tools and equipment with regard to 
condition or design; 

Choice of the wrong tool or ancillary 
equipment for the job; 

Increased hazards of doing repair work 
in the field; 

Insufficient methods of handling large, 
heavy truck parts and components; 

Poor design or housekeeping of the shop 
work station or platform; 

Inadequate service manuals and diagnos- 
tic aids that could help the mechanic 
start the task properly; and 

Use of untrained mine equipment opera- 
tors and laborers to perform the mainte- 
nance and repair tasks. 

It Is the purpose of this report to 
characterize haulage truck maintenance 
and repair hazards in U.S. surface mines. 



The data presented should help the mining 
industry, equipment manufacturers, MSHA, 
and the Bureau to further pinpoint spe- 
cific recommendations to combat the in- 
creasing hazards surrounding haulage 
truck maintenance. The approach has been 
to determine where and how maintenance 
personnel have been injured. Future re- 
search will address methods to alleviate 
specific hazardous situations, and pro- 
vide further recommendations. 

To reduce injuries in U.S. surface 
mines, maintenance and repair is a key 
area on which to focus attention, and 
this area may well be a new frontier for 
safety professionals. Because of the 
difficulty in analyzing maintenance ac- 
tivities and the great variety of job 
procedures, tools, equipment, and shop 
conditions, a lack of safety awareness as 
to the hazards involved with mine haulage 
truck maintenance seems to be present. 
Not surprising, the maintenance and re- 
pair function is a difficult area to 
supervise. This difficulty contributes 
to the growing safety hazard as well 
as to the high cost of the overall 
operation. 



REFERENCES 



1. Allen Corp. Improved Equipment De- 
sign To Reduce Haulage Truck Maintenance 
Injuries (contract J0215007). Aug. 1982, 
96 pp.; for info., contact D. A. Long, 
BuMines, Minneapolis, MN. 

2. Coal Age. Off-Highway Truck Study. 
Market Research Report, 1977, 26 pp. 

3. Conway, E. J. , and M. Sanders. 
Recommendations for Human Factors Re- 
search and Development Projects in Sur- 
face Mining (contract J0395080, Canyon 
Research Group, Inc.). BuMines OFR 211- 
83, 1982, 86 pp.; NTIS PB 84-143650. 

4. Downs, G. W. ' Relationship of 
Maintenance to Productivity. Plant 
Eng. , v. 30, No. 19, Sept. 16, 1976, 
pp. 191-196. 

5. Engineering and Mining Journal. 
Survey of Off-Highway Trucks in Metal and 
Nonmetal Mining. Market Research Report, 
1975, 38 pp. 

6. Hanna, G. T. Reducing the Costs of 
Maintenance. Plant Eng. , v. 30, No. 19, 
Sept. 16, 1976, pp. 159-161. 



7. Long, D. A. Off -Highway Haulage 
Truck Maintenance Safety. Paper in Safe- 
ty in The Use and Maintenance of Large 
Mobile Surface Mining Equipment. Pro- 
ceedings: BuMines, Technology Transfer 
Seminars, Tucson, AZ, August 16, 1983; 
Denver, CO, August 18, 1983; and St. 
Louis, MO, August 23, 1983, comp. by 
Staff, BuMines. BuMines IC 8947, 1983, 
pp. 55-62. 

8. . Bureau of Mines Study 

Reveals Increasing Hazards Surround Truck 
Maintenance. Pit and Quarry, Oct. 1983, 
pp. 56-60. 

9. . Improved Personnel Access 

for Surface Mining Equipment. BuMines 
IC 8983, 1984, 20 pp. 

10. . Off-Highway Haulage Truck 

Maintenance Safety. Paper in The Chal- 
lenge to Creativity, ed. by P. J. Sanders 
and L. Johnson (Proc. 55th Annu. Meeting 
MN Sec. AIME and 43d Annu. Min. Symp., 
Duluth, MN, Jan. 1982). Univ. MN, 1982, 
pp. 20-1—20-24. 



15 

11. Long, D. A. Off-Highway Haulage Repair in Metal and Nonmetal Mines. MESA 
Truck Maintenance Safety. Prof. Saf . , v. IR 1058, 1977, 34 pp.; available upon re- 
29, No. 7, July 1984, pp. 28-32. quest from MSHA, Arlington, VA. 

12. Mine Safety and Health Administra- 14. Tomlingson, P. D. Maintenance 
tion. Narrative Computer Listings of Performance Evaluation: A New Look at a 
Equipment Accidents Abstracted, 1978-84, Necessity (Internal Paper). Paul D. Tom- 
Health and Safety Analysis Center (HSAC), lingson Associates, Inc., Denver, CO, 
Denver Research Center, Denver, CO. 1985, 27 pp.; available upon request from 

13. Tierney, M. P. Analysis of Injur- P. D. Tomlingson. 
ies Associated With Maintenance and 



U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1987-605-017/60053 INT.-BU.OF Ml NES,PGH. ,PA. 28503 



W109 



U.S. Department of the Interior 
Bureau of Mlnee— Prod, and Diatr. 
Cochrans Mill Road 
P.O. Box 18070 
Pittsburgh. Pa. 15236 



OFFICIAL BUSINESS 
PtNALTY FOft PmVATJ USt S300 



] Do not wish to receive this 
material, please remove 
from your mailing list, 

^ Address change. Please 
correct as indicated. 



AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 







• A V *x 






vv 



* A V ^ 
* aV *>v . 




^ '••»* A <> ^JvT' a<> ^>„ '••.* A <, *<7YT i ,G* "o -..»• A -i\ * 















t-o» V^-V %^v V^V ^*^V V^-> ' 



ws / 



■-« 



» ^ V 






*~ V 



^ •" 



v 'IV* /•» <z 



' a5°^> 



<;•,' /^ + 










^3, '••T« A 










* V 6 »"», ^* 



* ♦J' ^ o vj(8.\y * a.v *5v 



*" . 






^ « 






r^^ . i • . 







0^ t .'JJ. ^C 




4 G*" ^ '° • » " A <► *'T 



4-°^ 



'o 



*b^ 






<> *'7V> 














•*6* 



O^ * g „ ' 








.•& K-. **..** .-^fe'-. \/ .-kKfe %/ .«'•. \/ ..^^-. %s 

* *♦ -^ .®^ % . ^ ^ -W^* A.* ^ . 



a5°^ 



6 ^ ^ 









>_ c°\C^!' '°o ^.••^••-'*- 



o.v O, * 







<> *'7CT 4 _,6 



O^ 'o . 







,° J. U ^K V 



) * A V "^ : 




* 

^ < 
^•0* 



G u SmtUto^- ° ,<T . 



** 







^ e » " • . <«> 



<. */r.T*'' .g^ 










d*" • 













O^ -o . 



l>* 







V** •«': %/ .'^figi': %,** .')8K: # ^/ 



\ ••fw.'\^\ ".||K.- /\. -.!^K.- /% --SgR.- /-\ ••»#• ** v \ -IB 



•• _»p^ -.^ 










° J 9 • 



c.*' * 



1 ' I, *^- ^ v . »i^L'* cv a0^ . ' • •- O V^ • L 'AS* <^ & » ' * 

.\^»2> /..•«. ^. a sj$$®£~ *ts a* ».e,^.« a «. v *jttifa}£' **. a* »v. 




.4° 



•o 









<. */y. <• ,G^ ^o, '?.T* A ^> ♦T^T* .G* ^>. ♦?.»* A 












^ . v . . •*! 




<* *'T7i* ,G^ ^>. 







a- 'of 



* ** 










V .' l /A* o. a* 



» 5 • • » ^-\ 






O JT 




°o. **.. 




V .♦'■J,!' o, 



V« c "-«K-.^rf 






: ^-0* 




"6 1-" 
4.°"^ 



** :& 




V 

£> -o . . * A 









<V *• 






♦ A^ **U •' 






^ A*' 



>> . » • , 



• A V ^ * 
* A* "^ • 



<J. V . o « • , ^ 






A v ^5, "o • » « A 



■>t 



-of 

4°% 



G° v ^ V .'^> V V r.°*^^»*° 



r . 


















o, 'o . . « a 

°-. 4* 




<^ *-TVi 



'♦•To* aO' ^ 




V « 



,* % 



A * 






\<f 









■ ^VKfl -AlwCr . \. A. *<ssi v><4 _ i* . rv 7 ///EL *X YvvV \. i. " JO?^^~^>!y * «. * TS/nk ' 'IA woo "* • 



V . < • 



> ^ ' 



















A°* \ 










*0« 









g&* 













^ ASfer. v j> .: 



1 »!••* > 






L^ 



% '-W /\ : -W'y% '-J5K-- /\ "-W?* /% \^K- /\ 










°* i'^% °0 






o V 

,4 0. 






P\C^% °o 



V 






67 "A 










•^•0* -*4f^'- *ot 






^^ 






•by* 



I^» .o 







^ V 




J^ v 




c o\.v^. o 



"^ *^T> ^ 









& * 







cC 1 - 









67^ ^ 



'•' ^^ '. 






iff! 



.?v^>^;v-^v v^-y v-*v ^'-^v y wf$ 

Py 5 W/ '° "\;^y °* <w> '° %'W ; y °v : 



o,. ».. 









^n/ 



••• *o 







A.i^-,% ^\^%% c */^i^ o o ^ 



t* 4? ^ oi 










O -o. 






-\ 



^■^ \^^v v^%o° \-^v v^*/ \/^-y 






C.vT 









<, *'7Vr» ,G^ ^ *o.T* ^ 



^ -^i-\ c°--^&-> y.-afe-% /^^o 






*bV" 



^o« 



&y, ..%*&•*> x^\/.. -oj%&--/ \-W-/ v? 
.^vjsis-.v ^.^&^ ^.-isai-.v A-xfk.^ Ss&i\ 



3,0 r 



a* 



<* ^ "^ • 



* ,'"', *<s> 



<> *'7VV' ,G 






^ 



<* ^ % 



^ / 







. 4?^ V 










v .: 



^0* 



. 4> t » » • , "V 



^^ 



;■ R.V .^ v /^^'.%. A * 9 .v4> - ;-.V .^/^Sfe-.^ ^ :•;&':•.%. .^ v .v 









LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



I || II III llllll I IMIH I i 

002 951 003 9 



Ml 



